Focusing on European population genetics and modern physical anthropology.

search this blog

Saturday, August 12, 2017

The Iron Age Iranian (?)

After the recent publication of Bronze Age genomes from present-day Greece and Portugal, you'd have to be a desperate fool not to accept that the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe is the most likely homeland of all surviving branches of the Indo-European language family. I don't want to say I told you so, but, well, I told you so (see here).
Yes, we're still waiting for those ancient genomes from South Asia. But don't expect any surprises when they do arrive, probably in a couple of months. Indeed, if you've still got a thing for the Out-of-India Theory (OIT), then it might be time to start looking around for a different hobby than following ancient DNA results. My advice is try meditation.
Thus, pending the sequencing of Hittite and other bona fide early Indo-European genomes from Bronze Age Anatolia, which should be able to help pinpoint the Proto-Indo-European (as opposed to just the Late Proto-Indo-European) Urheimat to the satisfaction of most, I suggest that we shift focus in the comments here in a big way, and, instead of wasting time arguing whether the early Indo-European expansions from the steppe happened, we get stuck into the details of how they happened.
Worthy subjects of discussion in this context, I'd say, are a couple of intriguing ancient West Asian individuals whose genotypes are now available for download at the Reich Lab website: Kumtepe4 from Chalcolithic Anatolia and F38 from an Iron Age burial at Tepe Hasanlu in what is now Iran.
Let's start with F38, whose genome was originally published back in 2016 as part of Broushaki et al. (see here):

Furthermore, our male Iron Age genome (F38; 971-832 BCE; sequenced to 1.9x) from Tepe Hasanlu in NW-Iran shares greatest similarity with Kumtepe6 (fig. S21) even when compared to Neolithic Iranians (table S20). We inferred additional non-Iranian or non-Anatolian ancestry in F38 from sources such as European Neolithics and even post-Neolithic Steppe populations (table S20). Consistent with this, F38 carried a N1a sub-clade mtDNA, which is common in early European and NW-Anatolian farmers (3). In contrast, his Y-chromosome belongs to sub-haplogroup R1b1a2a2, also found in five Yamnaya individuals (17) and in two individuals from the Poltavka culture (3). These patterns indicate that post-Neolithic homogenization in SW-Asia involved substantial bidirectional gene flow between the East and West of the region, as well as possible gene flow from the Steppe.

In other words, it's almost certain that F38 had recent ancestry from elsewhere than the South Caspian region, and probably from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
However, interestingly, when F38 was alive, Tepe Hasanlu was more likely to have been an ethnically Hurrian or Urartian site, rather than an Iranian one, and the Iron Age settlement there has a fascinating and tragic final story (see here).
Also, F38 shows a great deal of genetic similarity to three Early Bronze Age (EBA) samples from Kura-Araxes culture burials in what is now Armenia (labeled together as Armenia_EBA). Indeed, one of these Kura-Araxes individuals belongs to Y-haplogroup R1b, albeit to a different subclade than F38. Moreover, Kura-Araxes people are hypothesized to have been early speakers of Hurro-Urartian languages.
This is where Armenia_EBA and F38 cluster in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of ancient and present-day West Eurasian populations. Right click and open in a new tab to enlarge:

Like four peas in a pod, right? Not necessarily, because this outcome might be a simple coincidence. And, in fact, that's what my qpAdm analysis suggests. Using no less than 16 ancient outgroups, I found that the models below produced the best fits. Obviously, Anatolia_BA stands for Anatolia Bronze Age, CHG for Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer, Iran_ChL for Iran Chalcolithic, and Tepecik_Ciftlik_N for Tepecik Ciftkik Neolithic.

Admittedly, a more systematic and exhaustive search might be able to dig up even better fitting models and show that F38 does share recent ancestry with Armenia_EBA. But in any case, after running these tests, I'm now certain that F38 had significant admixture from the European steppe, probably via a population very similar to Poltavka_outlier.
On the other hand, I'd say that if Armenia_EBA had any steppe ancestry, then it's only a few per cent, and likely from a less northern-shifted source than Poltavka_outlier. This is what the 2-way models look like on the same PCA as above. Armenia_EBA and F38: so similar, yet potentially so different.

F38's probable steppe connection, of course, suggests that he was at least partly of Indo-European origin, and possibly a speaker of an Iranic language, because the Poltavka culture has been associated by some scholars with early Indo-Iranians.
Unfortunately, I don't have a decent enough diploid version of F38's genome to test his fine scale genetic affinities with a haplotype analysis. So I'd say that the most useful thing I can do, that wasn't already done in Broushaki et al., is to run an Identical-by-State (IBS) affinity test. This method is generally pretty good at picking up recent ethnic-specific genetic drift. These are F38's top 25 matches out of over 100 present-day populations:

The top three hits are from the Caucasus, which I suspect is due to F38's high ratio of CHG-related ancestry. Iranian and Iraqi Jews are both in the top five, probably because they're relatively similar to Iran_ChL. Armenians are the highest scoring Indo-European speakers, but Kurds also make the top ten, and it's interesting to see several different Greek and Italian groups in the top 25. No idea what that might mean though? To wrap things up, I'll suggest a few questions for the ensuing discussion in the comments:

- Was F38 an Hurro-Urartian or Indo-European, or an Hurro-Urartian with some Indo-European ancestry? If Indo-European or partly Indo-European, then what type? Armenian, Cimmerian, Iranian, or...?
- Is F38's R1b1a2a2 lineage a reflection of his potential Poltavka ancestry from the steppe or Kura-Araxes ancestry from the Caucasus?
- What explains F38's strong affinity to many modern-day European groups?
- Does the southern, non-Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG), part of Yamnaya's ancestry perhaps derive from a Bronze Age South Caspian population closely related to F38 and rich in R1b1a2a2?

177 comments:

I wouldn't take the IBS run too seriously. IBS can produce weird results sometimes.

It's quite possible that this person was an early Mede or West Iranic. The Medes already had big cities in the region by 835 BC, so they were most likely present in the region for few centuries.

Iranian tribes were present in western and northwestern Iran from at least the 12th or 11th centuries BC. But the significance of Iranian elements in these regions were established from the beginning of the second half of the 8th century BC.[31]

A distinction from other ethnolinguistic groups (in Herodotus, ethnos means 'people') such as the Persians is evident primarily in foreign sources, such as from mid-9th century BCE Assyrian cuneiform sources[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medes

While the Medes were likely to have been present in Iran well before the Assyrians first encountered them in 835 B.C., it remains unclear how the earliest Medes, let alone the early Iranians as a whole, should be distinguished in the archeological record.

Shalmaneser III had conquered Missi Median city close to Hasanlu, by 835 BCE. That's the first mention of the word 'Mada' by the Assyrians. However, there was mention of the 'Madani' in the 13th century BCE who lived near Nairi, a region where the Assyrian kings used to get their horses. There is still an argument of whether the Madani are the same as the Mada, though.

The Medes were already well established and considered rich by the Assyrians during Shamshi-Adad's V time. IMO, the Iranian influence in Mesopotamia was pretty old but you guys are tired of me repeating it by now.

@ The King, no they were not. There were no Western Iranics in the late Bronze age, as the Yaz culture in SC Asia was forming and plateau Iranic groups are derived from them. The only IE groups probably living in NW Iran at the time were remnants of Hittite or Luwian groups.

Davidski: the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe is the most likely homeland of all surviving branches of the Indo-European language family

Personally, most likely yes. All surviving, probably.

Although Garret + Chang's model does allow for a split between a clade with A: (Albanian+Armenian+Greek) and B: a remaining clade with all remaining extant languages - http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/enlarge/image_2516_2e-Indo-European-Languages.jpg.

It may end up that only B have a steppe origin (e.g. steppe environment / Yamnaya cultural stage vocabulary can only be reliably reconstructed for languages in the set B), though I think in that case, it seems likely that even A will have a most likely North Caucasian origin, and the actual ancestor A+B will be hard to place...

Scythians do not exist in the Bronze Age for starters. The language of the Yaz culture is Avestan , it is more archaic and more closely related to Sanskrit than other Eastern Iranic tongues. Avestan itself is classified as Eastern Iranic, but the point is other Iranic groups develop mainly in the Iron Age and Antiquity. Iranic tribes do not migrate West to East, because Plateau Iranians have no where near the levels of Steppe ancestry a lot of these Central Asian Tajiks do.

>>Iranic tribes do not migrate West to East, because Plateau Iranians have no where near the levels of Steppe ancestry a lot of these Central Asian Tajiks do

Tajiks are direct descendants of Andronovo, who according to Reich aren't the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians, and many eastern Iranian tribes so there should be no surprise that they have higher steppe, but you don't need higher steppe ancestry to speak IE languages and if that was the case then Myceneans should have a lot.

Again, there have been many cultures that can be considered Proto-Iranian, and just because you're sure that Yaz is the one doesn't necessarily mean it is. Even Sarianidi thought Indo-Iranians migrated from southeastern Iran to form BMAC.

Good point. But CHG in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, the British Isles, Iberia, and in Andronovo was facilitated only via the Steppe. If you believe PIE was CHG then you'd still have to settle with Steppe being a secondary PIE homeland and have the PIE expansion mostly going out of the Steppe. That really sounds like special pleading to me.

Plus CHG exists in lots of non-IE speaking people. While, outside of Siberia, all EHG in the world was facilitated via an LNBA Steppe-like population and everywhere we see Steppe ancestry there is or was an Indo European language.

"EHG in Mycenaeans really sealed the deal even if people like Rob refuse to understand its significance. ]."

First off, only one or two Mycenean has actual EHG, and so does one of the Minoans, making the differences between them one of degree. Secondly, there's a difference between rejecting the ridiculous idea that Mycenaeans are from Sintashta or Abashevo, as Dave was trying to push, and disagreeing with the idea that nuclear PIE came from a Black Sea homeland, but with a predominantly EEF group with 10~ "steppe" admixture via contact, which is what occurred.

"It may end up that only B have a steppe origin (e.g. steppe environment / Yamnaya cultural stage vocabulary can only be reliably reconstructed for languages in the set B), though I think in that case, it seems likely that even A will have a most likely North Caucasian origin, and the actual ancestor A+B will be hard to place."

It seems even the staunchest proponents of the original steppe hypothesis have retreated toward a more realistic scenario. I guess the evidence became overwhelming. Here is an excerpt from David Anthony's latest article:

"A geographic linkage between the archaeological site and IE languages and institutions is facilitated to the extent that the Yamnaya = late PIE hypothesis is deemed persuasive"

I think the idea that IE overall originally expanded from the Caucasus or beyond is becoming the consensus.

From a genetics standpoint dont see how EHG sealed the deal. CHG is all over the ancient Indo-European world including Bronze Age Anatolia.

You must be suffering from the same condition as Romulus then.

CHG related ancestry was spreading all over the non-Indo-European world too, including into pre-IE Anatolia, the pre-IE Aegean and even into Egypt. So it can't be linked, by itself, to the Proto-Indo-European expansions.

It can only be considered an Indo-European signal when found together with significant EHG ancestry, because steppe-derived populations expanding across Eurasia into the right places and at the right times for them to be considered Indo-Europeans had significant EHG ancestry.

It can't be linked to the Yamnaya IE expansions by itself.The original PIE expansion it could be based on the timing and archaeology and obviously the genome data,if IE came to the steppe from the Caucasus.Or, as you've said before, Yamnaya got IE from another steppe group.

Thanks. Pretty sure I can read. When one lumps all the data for the purpose of analysis, it erases individual variation, which actually shows what I just said and the differences are a matter of degree.

It's pretty obvious that the EHG in the Mycenaeans came from the north. The data in the paper shows this clearly.

The best models for the Mycenaeans include groups like Corded Ware and Sintashta (Europe_LNBA and Steppe_MLBA). On the other hand, to get ancient Armenians into the picture we have to assume that groups UNLIKE the Minoans lived in Greece before the Mycenaeans.

Isn't the idea behind the genetical steppe-theory that that a R1b1a2a1-L51 became the speakers of the Germanic, Celto-Germaninc and Italic - through a R1b1a2a-L23 minority of Yamna- some 4.500 years ago?

I still find notes estiamting the split between R1b1a2a2-Z2103 with its brother clade R1b1a2a1-L51 due at 8,000 years BP. Then the estimate of a MRCA for R1b-Z2103 is 7,400–5,600 years, while the MRCA for R1b-L51 is 7,600–5,900 years BP. Which means L51 is the older sub-branch and Z2103 the younger. Thus to questions:

1. Doesn't their close oommon ancestry imply that their LCA spoke the same (PIE) language, well BEFORE the split?

In that case the PIE should have reached Ukraine slithly AFTER it had reached into Central and Western Europe.

2. Where did the L51 roam before they produced a "Yamna exit" to western Europe - if not in Western Europe?

Understanding your argument isn't that difficult. It's been around som decades already - in various forms and formats. Since we haven't had any y-dna phylogeny based on evidence before this decade, there's been no academic or scientific basis existing - on which the possibility of such relationships could be tested. Which means that this argument is empty.

"Samples from the pre-IE, Neolithic steppe show R1a, R1b and I2, therefore it's likely that the earliest Indo-European community on the steppe included individuals belonging to R1a, R1b and I2."

Yepp. And they could very well be from the very same, pan-european language-group that linguists like to call PIE. Thus we've had a debate about an 'urheimat' for some century or two, already.

If you eally check wjats KNOWN about these issues you'll find that there is a outstandingly clear-cut relationship between the spread of patri-linear societies of the past and the present map of the IE and the Uralian languages.

Besides R1a/b and I2 you find the pioneering y-dna-groups of G2 and J2 withing the IE area, while the high-arctic N1-dynasty - obviously - took care for the spread of the Uralian toungues.

Y-dna H, a brother-line of GIJK(N/R), obviously made it to the paleolithc survivors of SSA, resulting in a less lingustic than genetic impact. Just as in the eastern side of th Himalayas, where the proto-chineese kept their major toungue, eventhough they adopted and mixed with some eurasian/caucasian dna of both sexes.

Since the idea of ancient patriarchic dynasties gets confirmed by aDNA we can't but combine the new knowledge of a 'dyanastical spread' of y-dna with the wellknown maps from modern aetnology, archaeology and linguistics.

If y-dna G once was predominant throughout the entire Meds and the ME - for some 7.000 years - it would share both age, neighbourhood and destiny with it's brother-line I2, who re-populated N Europe between 11.900 and 10.200 years ago, while a third brother-line J2 went east/south-east - to pre-dominate the only area where PIE would reach south of Himalaya.

You may believe that there's no corelation between the old high-cultures and their respective dynasties. Moreover you may belive that there's no corelation, ever, between these dynasties and their culture and their respective languages.

But you can't either prove or substatiate these claims - unless you can prove that old cultures and due civilizations never had ONE basic language throughout their population, as in "A mother-tounge". That would contradict the entire concept of 'civilization' as most of us understand it.

As we start getting that there is A corelation between ancient dynasties and the y-dna-lines of their populations its becomming clear that there IS, indeed, a co-relation between the distribution of patrilinear y-dna-groups and extent of specific cultures and due civilisations. Per consequence we may - or not - understand that there are several examples of a clear-cut corelation between majopr y-dna-groups and major langauge-groups.

One such example is G2, Minoan and Greco-Roman. Another is I2 and Celto-Germanic. A third is J2 and Vedic/Hindi. A fourth N1 and Uralic. When R1a and R1b start spreading the PIE impulses are already far and wide - through the older brotherhood of GHIJ.

If R1a/b arose in a PIE language-area they could readily adapt to regional differences existing already 8.000 years ago - as the cattle-farmers started to communicate with Minoans and Sumerians, as well as EHG, WHG and SHG. Thus we may find R1a together with R1b and or I2/G2/J2, as a result of neighbourhoods or trade, inovations and difussions, inter-marriages and implementations...

One such example is G2, Minoan and Greco-Roman. Another is I2 and Celto-Germanic. A third is J2 and Vedic/Hindi. A fourth N1 and Uralic. When R1a and R1b start spreading the PIE impulses are already far and wide - through the older brotherhood of GHIJ.

There was no GHIJ PIE brotherhood. You're just making shit up. Get off the funky medication.

It's really lame to push a stray z93 Bulgarian to be a Mycenaean Greek. In Dave's world of strict congruence of uni-parentals and language, that Z93 should be at least a Satem speaker not a kentum speaking greek. But in reality Not even balto-slavs are z93... forget greeks.

"Brother-hood# is a phrase refering to their common ancestry - from a makro-dad F. You KNOIW that and I am sure you're able to relate to the reality behind the phrase as soon as you so choose to.

The mentioned y-dna-lines is clearly distributed in the aDNA toady provided - where they were separated into large regions, respectively. With each region pre-dominated by ONE of them. All of them multiplying and spreading over centuries and millennias - to bacome dynastical enteties constituted by "fellow men".

---

Regarding R1b:

From what I know we should look west of Vistula and Oder to find the origin of L51. Pretty absent from eastern Europe. It's descending subgroups are highly concentrated, in multifolds through western Europe.

Before R1b-L23 split into Yamna and BB, with bullhorns and bulgards, they should occupy an area inbetween – not to far from the early split (bifurication) of R1a/b. Thus we better look for the areas where aurochses were plenty - and a common part of the menue - aleady during the LME.

Evidence of multiple cross-overs of mt-DNA - between Yamna/Ukraine and their patrilienar and matrimonial relatives in the west, south or east - can't change any of that.

By now it's obvious that both mesoltihic and neolithic populations were patri-local and linear, while the distribution of mt-dna seems rather matri-regional and circular. Inter-marriages between Yamna and their BB-cousins out west, or their Corded or Mycenean neighbours, should be a surprise to anyone. Nor would a directional impulse of mt-dna from their neigbours reach into Yamna - again providing evidence of relation, but not of causation and thus, direction.

Inter-marriages between the G, I, J and R1-dynasties doesn't imply other than 'peaceful and productive' relationships. Even when the 'roll-over' is significant we can't exclude 'improved economy' and 'exedingly growing birth-rates' as the explanation.

Given the age and success of L51 in Western Europe - still carrying an old stem of the IE lingua - it's impossible to exclude the possibility of a 'proto-european' directly ancestral to the 'proto-germanic' - which evidently was the main language of the Rb1-cattle-farming communities in western Europe. Perhaps even the I2 trappers and herders shared the same pan-euroepan toungue – as they shared some pan-euroepan mt-dna-pools.

Meanwhile their ex-charting cuisins in Ukraine would share words, goods and mt-dna with the J2's in the SE, as well as the G2's south and SW of the Black Sea. In a pretty ordinary fashion, by industrous farmers, fishers, herders, traders and craftsmen. No sensations, wars or cataclysms needed - but a steady, cultural development where the various PIE-toungues would develop into Greek and Roman, Gothic and Germanic, Iranian and Indian.

After the Akkadian, Assyrian and Achamenidian wars - and due babylonic confusions - some early branches mixed and recombined, resulting in war-thorned areas with new languages -such as Semittic, Late-Persian, Armenic, Late-Greek and Slavic.

Mycenaean culture was thought to have influences from as far as the Urals before anyone sequenced their DNA.

And now we have a pre-Mycenaean Bronze Age sample from the southern Balkans identical to Sintashta from the Urals, with the same Y-haplogroup. And not only EHG in Mycenaeans, but also Sintashta-like admixture as the most likely source of this EHG.

Because Greece had hardly any Z93 I really doubt Sintashta gave Mycenaeans Steppe ancestry. But somebody from the Steppe did.

"By pandering to the morons, you're selling yourself out, because no one of worth will take you seriously"

The Armenia BA and organic inter marriage with northerners stuff has no concrete evidence. Steppe intrusion has no concrete evidence either but IE language and concrete proof Steppe folk were migrating to a lot of places during the Bronze age is pretty legit evidence.

Dave You can twist whatever you want As you've just seen , no one with half a brain is buying your models. Proto-Greek can't derive from Sintashta or Abashevo or any of the Iranic 2000 BC groups you are shopping around for

That split occurred 4000 BC. Now you can claim that Myceneans have admixture from a monkey's uncle, and the fit is good, but it'll still be irrelevant

Of course it does It tells us that Greek as a distinct language existed by 2000 BC. It means it needed to have physically split from other IE speakers at least 1000 years earlier, otherwise it's still be PiE or Iranic The data of the Thracian Iranic means he was a recent arrival to Thrace and an outlier

Different Indo-European branches may have been sitting in different parts of the steppe until the Middle Bronze Age. The fact that they physically split from one another doesn't mean they left the steppe.

Look you have a strong case for Black Sea NPIE homeland without resorting to pseudo-theories. I'm just not getting your fixation with having everything couped up on the steppe until New Year's Eve 1700 BC.

I think one should be more cautious while assigning languages to individuals purely on the basis of some 'steppe' like autosomal ancestry.

On one hand there exists genetic evidence of movements of people from the steppe into europe and south/central asia during the bronze age.

Linguistics seems to postulate an exapansion of the Indo-European language family from the steppe at roughly the same time period.There is a case for believing in relation between the two. However it is important to recogonize that several steppic indo-european speaking people were assimilated into local groups and local peoples were assimilated into indo-European societies as well. Sintashta seems far too late to represent any form of greek. Also couldn't the individual in question have been a thracian or stray iranic speaker as well. Likewise it is entirely possible that the early greeks were dominated by 'non indo-european' lineages by the time of the expansions of greek speakers into the greek peninsula

Why don't you apply the same logic when you talk of South Asia ? Quite a baffling logic of convenience you apply indeed.

Here's the logic I'm following:

- modern-day South Asian Y-chromosomes provide strong evidence of massive incursions from the steppe into South Asia during the Bronze Age, so ancient DNA won't say anything new, but it'll be nice to see it anyway

- modern-day Greek Y-chromosomes don't necessarily provide evidence of any incursions from the steppe into the Aegean region during the Bronze Age, so we need ancient DNA to see what was happening there at the time, and we got an early glimpse of that in two recent papers.

+ You confirmed what I was saying a while ago on Anthrogenica. That the similarity of Iron_Age Iranian to Armenia EBA is coincidental.+ Armenia EBA being a mix of Tepecik and CHG is an excellent model. Because it means that Shulaveri will be most likely a more eastern version of Tepecik. And the Kura Araxes are a rebound of CHG ancestry.+ The Iron Age Iranian could be a Mannean who I believe was an IE tribe with Hurrian substrate. From Iranian tribes he could be a Cimmerian who are well attested in that Urmia region. The R1b-Z2103 was also found in Sarmatian context. But it was completely different subbranch.+ The reason why Armenians are on the top is because he is R1b-L584 the most frequent type of R1b in Armenia. This R1b-L584 in most likelihood started it's expansion from Trialeti Vanadzor culture. Trialet Vanadzor culture was a MBA culture in South Caucasus that formed after Kura-Araxes.

Sintashta seems far too late to represent any form of greek. Also couldn't the individual in question have been a thracian or stray iranic speaker as well.

Who claimed that Sintashta migrated to Greece? And who said that the Z93 individual in Bulgaria was a proto-Greek? Certainly not me.

This individual may indeed have been a stray, but if so, it seems a remarkable coincidence that he resembles a population from the Ural region that is a very good fit for the steppe ancestry in Mycenaeans, and its with the Ural region that the Mycenaeans show mythological and very obvious archaeological links.

Clearly, there were strong links between the Mycenaeans and steppe peoples resembling Sintashta, which weren't just trade links, because these steppe peoples were moving into the southern Balkans even before the Mycenaeans appeared, not just occasionally as strays, but as a whole population.

You've got larger mass migration in those scenarios, where the migrating edge is close to 50% of the language community, so you don't have to mess around with elite dominance and population structure stuff.

Of course you may have Sintashta like people cropping up in some locations - we might seem them appear as something like elite mercenary figures in some places bringing a new technology, or as slaves in others, individuals sold on to the south by other steppe people - but it seems to be easiest if the majority movement is just a Balkans group with a reasonably high Anatolian Neolithic farmer fraction, and a little WHG.

If the archaeology is really decisive though, I guess that would clinch it.

(This is all if we're going with Minoan+North, rather than BalkansGreeceLN+East).

- modern-day South Asian Y-chromosomes provide strong evidence of massive incursions from the steppe into South Asia during the Bronze Age, so ancient DNA won't say anything new, but it'll be nice to see it anyway

Modern S Asia is remarkably under-sampled and that is a big hole regarding the acceptance of your logic . There is no archaeological record of any such massive incursion . If any such thing happened , its quite possible it happened within the Subcontinent during the de-urbanization phase of the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization aka IVC .

- modern-day Greek Y-chromosomes don't necessarily provide evidence of any incursions from the steppe into the Aegean region during the Bronze Age, so we need ancient DNA to see what was happening there at the time, and we got an early glimpse of that in two recent papers.

I don't think with 80-85% ''non-steppe'' ancestry the idea of such migration is a convincing proposal , it may came from north, but perhaps not related to language change at all . What is necessary is to find more DNA from Mycenaean context , perhaps J2 will turn out to be the major Mycenaean Y-DNA.

Really can't see the sense behind the BalkansGreeceLN+East model, since the archaeological links point to the steppe not the Caucasus or Anatolia, and the genetic data agrees with the archeology.

@Nirjhar

You're being dishonest, because you must know that the main model for the introduction of Greek into Greece is the Mycenaean elite model, in which a small dynasty of warriors from the steppe take over a much larger population.

I understand your reservations about EHG stats: Thinking it could be a "false positive" due to ANE in CHG-rich admixture from an Armenia/Anatolia_Ch/BA admixture?

This can and surely does account for some of it, but look at the f-stats again---carefully. Do you see how WHG sharing is correspondingly increased in Mycenaeans relative to Minoans?

Now, how do you explain THAT? 1. Hunter gatherer survivors?----astronomical chances(as Rob will be happy to explain) 2. Admixture from more WHG-shifted, Spain-like farmers?----Unlikely yet again. Mathieson paper suggested no such possibility.

That leaves us with some steppe-admixed BA European source: autosomally similar to a German Bell Beaker or Hungary_BA, perhaps. Alternatively, it could have come directly from a steppe-like source, but this is dubious.

Regarding outliers, yes, they are outliers, but the Varna outlier (4600 BC, 45% Yamnaya) is 1 out of 5 samples (that's 20%). The Trypillia outlier (~3300 BC, 35% Yamnaya) is also 1 out of 5 samples (another 20%). They can't be completely ignored.

@Nirjhar007"Modern S Asia is remarkably under-sampled and that is a big hole regarding the acceptance of your logic . There is no archaeological record of any such massive incursion . If any such thing happened , its quite possible it happened within the Subcontinent during the de-urbanization phase of the Sindhu-Sarasvati Civilization aka IVC ."

It is the Harappan civilization or the Indus Valley Civilization, not the "Sindhu-Saraswati civ". The only people who say the later are Hindutva/Aryancentrists. Use the correct term , not a nationalist term.

Is there any archaeological record of Alexander the Great's conquest of N.W India? Is there any archaeological record of Scythian conquest of N.W. India? Is there any archaeological evidence for Greek conquest of lands of the Minoans and Mycenaeans? Are you going to claim the Scythians and Alexander did not conquer the N.W. Indian SubContinent and the Greeks did not conquer the lands inhabited by Mycenaeans , and the Minoans before them?

@nathan The IVC sites are concentrated alongst the banks of the Indus and the Ghaggar-Hakra. The Sindhu and Sarasvati merely being the native names for these two river systems.

The greek and central asian invasions of NW India are pretty well established by the archaeological

Such comparisons are in any case ridiculous given that the latter occurred well into the historical period while any aryan immigration occurred prior to the usage of writing in South Asia except the IVC 'script' which remains undeciphered

He certainly could be from those Kurgans which show up in Armenia c. 2200 BC. Iran_IA:F38 Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665 48.95 % Anatolia_Chalcolithic:I1584 35.95 % Samara_Eneolithic:I0434 10.4 % Kotias:KK1 4.55 %

your not getting the point. All the present day Iranic languages spoken in West Asia ultimately derive from the Yaz cultural complex in South Central Asia.

LOL you think Scythians are in existence as the same time as the as Androvono/Sintashta Iranians, when they derive from those groups. Western Scythians back migrated to Pontic Steppe and were Eastern Iranic speakers.

I don't see how any explanation can posit R1b-L23 as a non north European population rich in EHG. There were other components to their ancestry later in time, but originally going way back to 5000 BC, they were primarily EHG in origin.

The linguistic debate should be kept separate as the evidence is far less tangible.

"This result suggests that there were no major genetic shifts in the mtDNA gene pool in South Caucasus across the last 7,800 years."

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30695-4"

Your digging yourself a mighty deep hole, by pulling in the Armenian study.2 points of interest- Iranian F38 is a branch of R1b-L584.-https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y23838/Kapan, Armenia is close proximity to the above study[Artsakh spanning 7,800 years];Kapan R1b sample is RISE397, LBA, 1192-855 BC-R1b-FGC48354* https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/id:YF08791ARM is a branch of R1b-Z2106 downstream R1b-Z2106 Rise-547+Rise555https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-basal-subclades/about/background

About the Armenian mt I think having demonstrated that what the paper says isn't true. Certainly the K1a1b1e sample isn't old in Armenia, coming very likely from Tuscany (it is my haplotype and Tuscany has many basal haplotypes).The Y samples found in Armenia came of course from Samara where they are older of thousands of years, and about F38 I demonstrated its origin and its descendants to day from migrations from Caucasus in Middle Ages till Iberia, Great Britain and the introgresison in the Jewish pool and Lebaneses fron Crusaders. If you have better data, I am here.

"You're being dishonest, because you must know that the main model for the introduction of Greek into Greece is the Mycenaean elite model, in which a small dynasty of warriors from the steppe take over a much larger population."

But didn't all the Mycenaen samples belong to male Haplogroups of J? This can only work with the Elite Model if we assume there were some J in the Steppes we haven't found yet.

What Minoan immigration you are referring to? The ancestors of the Minoans were primarily Neolithic Cretans. The descendants of the Minoans kept living in Crete; they were just dominated by the Mycenaeans and eventually adopted their culture (i.e. they were totally and completely Indo-Europeanized).

Not sure why people do not seem to pay much attention to the Kumtepe4 individual, highlighted by David in the into of this post. I have briefly commented about this sample in previous posts. First of all, my understanding looking at the dating from the original publication puts this individual right in the transition from the Chalcolithic to the EBA in Anatolia (thus wrongly labeled as LN in the literature). What is strange about this individual is not so much her substantial ANE ancestry, but the fact that this ANE ancestry is accompanied by a significant reduction in Basal-rich admixture, something that is untypical of other contemporary or subsequent samples from the same region. For example, both Anatolia_Chl and Anatolia_BA show substantially higher Basal-rich admixture.

What worries me is that the authors say that "Given the low genome coverage of Kum4, it was only possible to use this individual to corroborate the patterns observed in Kum6". Therefore, not sure if we should interpret this result with caution. By the way, same goes for Crete_Armenoi, which is also a very interesting, yet low coverage sample..

Malak Preslavets hailed from northern Bulgaria, north of the Balkan mountains which divide the country into, arguably, different ecoregions. Geographically speaking, Malak Preslavets people likely occupied the same interaction zone as Romanian farmers who, from what we have seen, were not WHG poor in the slightest. The other Bulgarian and Balkan farmers were just as WHG-poor/basal-shifted as Anatolian farmers, mind you. Trypilia---a bit far, don't you think?

To visualize the WHG shift evident in Mycenaneans would mathematically imply a substantial degree of population turnover and, hence, a migratory nature of the Romania-Preslavets-Trypilia populations. There is no reason to think those agriculturalists were migratory and would have sought Greece out(with its inferior soils) barring any sort of pestilence covering a wide area perhaps.

Besides, come Bronze age, we don't the type of WHG resurgence in the Balkans Western Europe experienced, but some type of a steppe-ward shift. So, if this steppe-ward shift is not an artifact and they did receive a "migratory package", the increase in Villabruna ancestry in the Mycenaean population could be attributed to people like them.

"Hello... have you seen a map of Europe? if a 3 year old had to guess which population in Greece have more WHG and was told WHG is is western mainland Europe what parts of Greece would he point to?"

Your hypothetical desperately begs the question of whether Epirus even had significantly more WHG than other parts. It isn't like Western parts of Greece abut the Atlantic seaboard, the Baltic or Ukraine, areas associated with increased WHG ancestry during the Neolithic----just saying.

Anyway, geography and Mathieson paper makes your proposition unlikely to say the least. Samples outside of Greece, from geographically and ecologically proximal FYROM and Dalmatia, were not outliers w/respect to extra HG ancestry.

That aside, there was indeed some BALKANS-wide variation(if Romania is included) as Alberto pointed out, but that's another matter.

"Good point. But CHG in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, the British Isles, Iberia, and in Andronovo was facilitated only via the Steppe. If you believe PIE was CHG then you'd still have to settle with Steppe being a secondary PIE homeland and have the PIE expansion mostly going out of the Steppe. That really sounds like special pleading to me.

Plus CHG exists in lots of non-IE speaking people. While, outside of Siberia, all EHG in the world was facilitated via an LNBA Steppe-like population and everywhere we see Steppe ancestry there is or was an Indo European language."

If PIE was spoken in the Caucasus and the initial speakers were little more than CHGs genetically speaking, then yes the steppe would be a secondary homeland..not PIE but an early branch of IE that descended from PIE and gave rise to many other branches. I don't see how that's special pleading, I mean the majority of 'English' was not spread over the globe by pure Anglo Saxons..but rather by mixed people from the British empire who were probably 65-70% Insular Celt genetically. The majority of Romance languages over the globe were spread from a secondary Spanish source, not from the Romans. Point is we've seen plenty of these type of large linguistic expansions from secondary sources in history...in Indo-European history.

Also, it's not surprising CHG exists all over the non Indo-European world as well in the southern part of West Eurasia...but is EHG not in the far North? Are you saying Uralic speakers in 1,500 BC at the time of say Mycenaean Greece did not have lots of EHG ancestry? Finns today are packed with it.

Anyway, i'm not saying i 'know' or am even supporting the Caucasus hypothesis over the steppe hypothesis. I'm just saying those who are declaring it a closed case in favor of the steppe seem to be a little bit too fundamentalist to me. The lack of EHG in Bronze age Anatolia is at least worrisome..we also need to know how present EHG was in Iran and South Asia during the Bronze age which we don't know at this moment. Also as Lazardis 2016 showed it's questionable if Andronovo-Sintashta actually spoke Proto Indo-Iranian. So I think there's still a lot to find out and help us solve the puzzle.

"Plus CHG exists in lots of non-IE speaking people. While, outside of Siberia, all EHG in the world was facilitated via an LNBA Steppe-like population and everywhere we see Steppe ancestry there is or was an Indo European language."

Myceneans, Luwians, Zoroastrians and many Iranics did not have much EHG. The EHG = IE equivalence only holds for northern Europe. For all we know Minoans were IE speaking or had minority Luwian or even greek speakers during their 2000 year tenure. Some late Linear A readings definitely suggest that.

CHG is 13 k years old it means that every CHG that ever lived or spread cannot be expected to be IE

Also every IE that ever lived or migrated is not guaranteed to be CHG either... its an artificial expectation.

How old is EHG: at least 9k years old:Same rules apply.

Its quite possible that neither EHG or CHG were the original PIE speakers.

The CHG-related signal, which includes Y-hg J, cannot be linked to the Proto-Indo-Europeans, because its main spread during the Neolithic and Bronze Age is with non-Indo-European speaking populations, like those that moved into pre-Indo-European Greece and Egypt.

On the other hand, EHG can be linked to the Proto-Indo-Europeans, because its biggest expansion out of Eastern Europe shows a strong correlation with the Kurgan model of Indo-European origins.

Arch is trying to muddy the waters for whatever reason. Postneo is just acting like a dickhead.

I think you are focusing too much on the Y haplogroups and far too much on a presumed 100% R1 steppe population for the whole of IE. Western populations on the Steppe that came from such groups as Cernavoda and Ezero may be quite different from Yamnaya proper. Then there is Sredny Stog, Novodalilovka and other cultures to look at as well. All these share cultural traits with Yamnaya, and may form extended parts of a Kurgan synthesis.

"and many Iranics did not have much EHG. The EHG = IE equivalence only holds for northern Europe."

Are you oblivious to the fact that Pamiris, Yaghnobis, many Pashtuns(ask Sein and ColdMountains), many urban Tajiks and (most likely)Old Khwarezmians are EHG and R1a-z93 rich? Or are you that certain it's merely Kelteminar-related ANE?

It's also theorized that the non-ENA, steppe-like ancestral portion of contemporary Turkic groups in Central Asia corresponds to once Iranic-speaking Scythians.

In any case, the country of Iran was NOT the historical staging ground for Iranic peoples, but a always a terminus of the Iranosphere. Indeed, Iranians west of the great salt desert have very modest steppe ancestry and, as Kurti once implied, appear to have retained pre-Iranic Mesopotamian practices. No amount of propaganda videos made by neo-Aryanists and Neo-Zoroastrians on youtube is going to change that.

Mughrab region, BMAC, YAZ, Khwarasan, Sogdia, Bactria, Khwarizm, Avestan language---THAT is what should readily come to mind upon hearing the term "early Iranic".

Of course, Dave used a 2-way model, but the results are basically the same. SO if Shvaleri-Shomu was the pre-Chalcolithic (i.e. Neolithic) stage, what can we say about it, on impression ? The shift to EBA seems mediated by intrusion of Tepecik-like groups.

@Davidski"he lack of EHG in a few Bronze Age Anatolians who probably weren't Indo-Europeans isn't worrisome at all.

It's a good thing, just like the lack of EHG in Minoans."

Trying to be somewhat objective as an academic, I take umbrage at calling any DNA results a good thing. "Goodness" is a theological/axiological/term that has no bearing in scientific research. That said, I agree that the lack of EHG in BA Anatolians and Minoans suggests two things:1) Linear A is not a Luwian language.2) The Minoan/BA Anatolian results support a pre-Greek substrate to the Aegean--with -nth- and -ss- toponyms highlighting their non-Indo-European language.

"Trying to be somewhat objective as an academic, I take umbrage at calling any DNA results a good thing. "Goodness" is a theological/axiological/term that has no bearing in scientific research. That said, I agree that the lack of EHG in BA Anatolians and Minoans suggests two things:1) Linear A is not a Luwian language."

Although Finkelberg argues that those -nth- -ss- toponyms are Anatolian

"You always seem to have serious comprehension problems when Y-haplogroup J is involved.

Only one Mycenaean male was sampled, and he did belong to J, just like all of the Minoans, but he wasn't from an elite burial, so his Y-haplogroup was probably of local origin.

Did you understand what I just posted?"

You could have simply answered," There is only one Mycenaen male sample and I assume that with more samples coming in we will find R Haplogroups, but why the easy and civilized way?

You should stop getting personal everytime you are being confronted with fact that do not fit into your fancy theories. Even if there was only ONE male Mycenaen sample. He was J. NO R found so far. So how comes you can speak of "Elite Dominance"?

Are you merely speculating? Isn't that excatly what you are criticizing about the Indians in this comment section? Double standards pretty much.

"You once claimed that a rich Kurgan on the steppe included a sample with J. Now you think that Minoans belonging to J are Mycenaeans."

When and where did I claimn that? I said there was even a J sample found at the Steppes prior to Bronze AGE. Turned out it was a H&G from Karelia not the Steppes. But didn't change much about the point, that if you find J all that far up what makes you think there couldn't be any J in the Steppes during that period.

This was one of many tries to keep a civilized discussion with you but it seems you can't even put together a single sentence without getting personal in the typical childish way.

I really like these discussions and the way things pans out at the end of the day.

Since I am a novice I look at the evidence presented and which evidence turned out to be less disappointing for the individuals who presented it.

So at this stage the Steppe Hypothesis for PIE seems to be the least disappointing and the people who stick to this are usually the most accurate conserning their predictions when looking at older comments....

As for the claims that any Greek word or toponym containing the sequence -nth or -ss is of non-Indo-European origin, I think they should be considered groundless. Such words might as well be traces of divergent archaic (para-)Greek dialects or non-Greek Indo-European languages that have gone extinct. One might take such claims more seriously if epigraphic evidence of a non-Indo-European language that may have loaned such lexemes to Proto-Greek were presented.

@anthro"Are you oblivious to the fact that Pamiris, Yaghnobis, many Pashtuns(ask Sein and ColdMountains), many urban Tajiks and (most likely)Old Khwarezmians are EHG and R1a-z93 rich? Or are you that certain it's merely Kelteminar-related ANE? It's also theorized that the non-ENA, steppe-like ancestral portion of contemporary Turkic groups in Central Asia corresponds to once Iranic-speaking Scythians. "

Zoroastrians have very little steppe inspite of east Iranian origins. You are saying that only Pamiris are Pashtuns are true Iranians and west Iranians are fake.

Steppe like ancestry shows up in Turkic speakers in Central Asia and in Uralic speakers. You cannot blow that off as "it is theorized..". There is DNA from Kelteminar?

Coming back to Greece, this is what the nature pub says.

The date of onset of a north-eastern like component found in Mycenaeans is unknown. It could have happened any time after 4100 BC.

There was no significant difference in DNA between the single elite Mycenaean burial and that of a commoner.

The bulk of the DNA of Minoans and Mycenaeans are new entrants to Greece from 3000 bc onwards based on both archeology and difference between these and earlier EEF like populations.

quoting from the paper

"Geographical structure may have prevented the spread of the ‘north- ern’ ancestry from the mainland to Crete, contributing to genetic differentiation. Such a structure may, in principle, be long-standing, even before the advent of the Neolithic in the seventh millennium bc."

"However, sampled Neolithic samples from Greece, down to the Final Neolithic ~4100 bc (ref. 2), do not possess either type of ancestry, suggesting that the admixture we detect probably occurred during the fourth to second millennium bc time window."

They don't seem too anxious to jump the gun in therms of conclusions. They are only going by the scope of the current samples.

That kind of variance within four samples probably isn't very impressive compared with the base fact that she was from an elite tholos (beehive tomb).

IRC, shaft graves aren't even from the earliest stages of what is thought to be formation of a Greek speaking group in Greece - http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/aha/kaw/palsoc/tombsglossary.htm / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helladic_period / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Greek_language

"Shaft graves = Late Middle Bronze Age 1650 - 1500 BC""Proto-Greek is mostly placed in the Early Helladic period (3rd millennium BC)"

So even if we have this model that small minority of Sintashta (or whatever, depending on substrate) like people entered Greece and had an elite influence in starting the language and eventually spread some genes about, would it not be strange to still find them well after the emergence of Greek and indeed even Greek civilization?

"So even if we have this model that small minority of Sintashta (or whatever, depending on substrate) like people entered Greece and had an elite influence in starting the language and eventually spread some genes about, would it not be strange to still find them well after the emergence of Greek and indeed even Greek civilization'

Bit of a straw man there, no? Because I don't think anyone claimed that the shaft graves contained fresh off the steppe proto-Greeks, just that these graves in particular showed strong archaeological and cultural links between the Mycenaean elite and the steppes.

So it's the obvious place to look to find members of the Mycenaean dynasty. It's sort of like sampling Brahmins in North India to be able to get a good Indo-Aryan signal.

"Trying to be somewhat objective as an academic, I take umbrage at calling any DNA results a good thing. "Goodness" is a theological/axiological/term that has no bearing in scientific research. That said, I agree that the lack of EHG in BA Anatolians and Minoans suggests two things:1) Linear A is not a Luwian language.2) The Minoan/BA Anatolian results support a pre-Greek substrate to the Aegean--with -nth- and -ss- toponyms highlighting their non-Indo-European language."_

So you think the pre Hellenic/pre Indo-European language is related to Minoans and not Anatolian-Aegean Neolithic farmers from an earlier era? I thought the Minoan language was essentially completely alien. Since 50% of words in Greek are not of Indo-European origins, you think they come from a Minoan like language? Simon on here said Minoan sounded like an "exotic African language". Does the pre Greek substrate sound like an "exotic African language"? If the pre Greek language in Greece was really Minoan like..the language used in Linear A, you'd figure the linguists would have said that was the case already.

I'm more inclined to believe the 'pre Greek substrate' in Greek is from Anatolian-Aegean farmers. Minoans probably brought their own language when the eastern/CHG genetic shifts happened in the East Mediterranean.

sigh.. ..its of NO significance. there is a geographic barrier between Mycenaeans and Minoans so a difference is more than expected. Let me guide you by hand...

You actually have a good point which you are ignoring. the elite burial is from the an extreme western part of Greece. So one can definitely argue that the extra northeast signal in the elite there is anomalous.

On the other hand the similarity of mainland Mycenaeans and island Minoans is also more than expected. Somewhat anomalous as well compared to neolithic Greece

"Zoroastrians have very little steppe inspite of east Iranian origins."Only if we assume hyper-endogamy and maintenance of a caste-based priestly profession(as opposed to merit-based) upon their arrival to Western Iran. It's a pretty tall order, if you ask me.

"You are saying that only Pamiris are Pashtuns are true Iranians and west Iranians are fake."I am not passing any value judgments here. At any rate, the answer is yes if one's definition of "true" is strictly based on the content of steppe DNA w/in the context of Iranic speaking populations.

"Steppe like ancestry shows up in Turkic speakers in Central Asia and in Uralic speakers. You cannot blow that off as "it is theorized..". There is DNA from Kelteminar?"

Blowing it off? On the contrary, I'm highlighting this fact as it attests to a large Scythian/Sarmatian presence in Old Turan. There is no aDNA from Kelteminar as of yet, BUT people have suggested the EHG signal seen in Central Asia, as well as in Armenia is in fact pseudo-steppe and should be attributed to another source. Jaydeep pulled a hail-mary with a South Asia ANE theory, but Kelteminar is a much better candidate, obviously, if there is truth to this notion.

The way I see it, by the dawn of steppe incursions, pre-Iranic urban complexes of Oxus, Bactria and Mughrab were essentially more ANE-shifted Iran_N. Basically, they were analogous to Iberia_Chl or Gokhem in Western West Eurasia.

Modern Zoroastrians are a tiny population a small remainder of the once vast zoroastrian population that included iranians as well as central asians. There low 'steppe' ancestry probably represents their origin predominantly in western iran coupled with further dilution through admixture with south asians.

The answer I expected from a insecure fool who seems to think "Elite Dominance " works all the way behind his keyboard.

No wonder you never even once agreed on my invitation to have an discussion on neutral ground such as Eupedia. When we were just about to get into a discussion on Anthrogenica you got me banned for "insulting" you with the words "of being agenda driven" and look here at the insults you are throwing around. Who is the clown now.

I dare you to come over at Eupedia and have a discussion with me. I will teach your sorry self a few lessons in archeology and linguistics.

the only thing you seem to be capable off halfway is juggle with genetic data. Your understanding of archeology and linguistics is miserable. And your attempts to put puzzles together just laughable.

Now cry on this your brat the fault is not on your side, the fault is on mine trying to get into a civilized discussion with an idiot.

@Davidski: Bit of a straw man there, no? Because I don't think anyone claimed that the shaft graves contained fresh off the steppe proto-Greeks, just that these graves in particular showed strong archaeological and cultural links between the Mycenaean elite and the steppes.

So it's the obvious place to look to find members of the Mycenaean dynasty. It's sort of like sampling Brahmins in North India to be able to get a good Indo-Aryan signal.

Ok, I guess clearer on what you're talking about. It could be true that there could be population structure. If we're not talking about a pretty recent impulse from a high steppe population though, you would need strong population structure to maintain it. If you start with a population with 70 steppe and one with 20 steppe, then in 6 generations (120-180 years as we reckon it) of outmarriage you'd be down to something like a 1% difference (most of which happened in the first 3 generations).

It could be true. The evidence of an ordinary female in the tholos team seems to push against it. Even if the case that she was an ordinary Mycenaean woman who was married into the elite family, that suggests that intermarriage is frequent and so in an opposite direction to strong population structure.

But (after I've just googled) doesn't this stuff about a steppe impulse to Greece come from the work Robert Drews refers to here (in the publication this year)? https://tinyurl.com/y9tvf4tq -

"Penner made a strong case that the people buried in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae came from the forst steppe between the Volga and Ural rivers. She presented in detail striking parallels between burials in the Shaft Graves and those in the Sintashta-Petrovka archaeological culture."

So I don't know, is this such a strawman? It does seem like she is saying that the graves contain literal fresh off the steppe Greeks.

This said, Drews himself goes on to make the "case for Southern Caucasia" for the "militarization" of Greece and "most of the military men who took over the Laurion mines and other parts of Greece" (citing various cultural motifs and bronze working), though he appears by no means dismissive of a movement from the steppe. (This is all in the context of arguing that a military expeditation - from some origin - invaded and took over late-middle Helladic Greece in around the Mycenaean period.)

(Drews also goes on to make a case for proto-Armenian "precisely in the direction of Southern Caucasia" https://tinyurl.com/y96z7lrn in connection with his discussion of proto-Greek and his "case for Southern Caucasia").

There does seem like a lack of scholarly consensus about the date of when exactly any form of Greek became established in Greece. Drews refers that "The Greek terminology for parts of a wheeled vehicle, along with the absence of earlier evidence for wheeled vehicles in Greece, makes it quite certain that the military takeover ca 1600 BC bought to Greece an Indo-European language that in its new setting would become Greek.".

So that is a late-middle Helladic origin of Greek, circa 1600BC, brought by a steppe (per Penner) or South Caucasian population (per Drews).

On the other hand, 3000BC is also apparently a perfectly respectable date for proto-Greek in Greece (wikipedia refers to one, Grigoriev). Seems like any time within 3000-1700 BC range is also fair game (Grey and Atkinson's date from their flawed application of lexicostatistics is by consensus wrong, and too old).

@JijnasuModern Zoroastrians are a tiny population a small remainder of the once vast zoroastrian population that included iranians as well as central asians. There low 'steppe' ancestry probably represents their origin predominantly in western iran coupled with further dilution through admixture with south asians.

"Drews refers that "The Greek terminology for parts of a wheeled vehicle, along with the absence of earlier evidence for wheeled vehicles in Greece, makes it quite certain that the military takeover ca 1600 BC bought to Greece an Indo-European language that in its new setting would become Greek."."

Yes.

But before that there where a military takeover of Crete, arriving by boat from Cyprus and the Levant, at about 2.000+ BC.

Which may explain the occurance of J2 - as an "elite" or a "warrior" cast - into a culture and a region initially dominated by y-dna G2.

Crete older than 4.000 is (still) G2, the younger are J2. I guess the J2 men had some female company, in which case CHG should be expected.

If J2 later got visitors from mainland Greece and/or the Black Sea, we may expect to find some I2 and/or R1a/b to be appearing. After the Thera eruption, presumably - initiating the Mycenean period.

If the mainland Myceneean brougth an I-E language to Crete we have to expålain the non-IE substrate with one of the earlier periods. Begging the question wether it was the old G2-Minoans or the interluding J2-Akkadians that brought the non-IE elements to these islands.

Please note that we still have no clue to wether the early Minoans - spreading around the Meds - spoke a PIE or a non-PIE language.

What we do know is that they COULD have been speaking PIE already. Moreover we know that they are dominated by the G2-line - all along the northern facade of the Meds.

Ôtzi was obviously not the only one. Since the publication of his y-dna we've had numerous new repports on the genome of southern Europe - as well as Asia Minor - confirming that the G2a-line was predominant throughout this area. And hardly occuring anywhere else - historically.

Can you run the "true"-Iranic panel consisting of peoples like Pamiri, Yaghnobi, Tajik(various), Pashtuns, etc.? Try Turkmens, too, but don't use a mixed ENA-WestEurasian population to model them(instead, use Han or smth). I'd like to get an idea of how much steppe/extra CHG they have.

Also, can you try running Feyli Kurds, Kurds, and Armenians? These populations carry negligible steppe ancestry and, as Kurti would be happy to explain, retain a large degree of cultural continuity with pre-Indo European times. The same holds true for Western Iran, too, but to a lesser extent.

??? Kurds and Armenians do not have negligible steppe ancestry. Even the Lebanese have steppe ancestry compared to Bronze Age Sidonians, Haber et al. gives 7.6%. Its quite widespread in West Eurasia, but at low levels in all non-Indo Europeans.

Something is inflated and I don't buy the figure from the Sidon paper. Has to be some kind of an artifact because it mathematically entails a mass-turnover scenario. Armenians actually have less Yamna-related than Anatolian Turks due to a medieval Turkic infusion in the latter.

Here is some interpretation of the phaistos disc as Luwian related.http://luwianstudies.org/the-luwians/phaistos-disc/

The Mycenaeans were around for more than 2000 years. Did their language never shift in that whole span of time? Being trading ports they could to have been multilingual Influenced by Luwian, Hatti and early greek and other languages.

@AnthroBlowing it off? On the contrary, I'm highlighting this fact as it attests to a large Scythian/Sarmatian presence in Old Turan.

I am saying that Steppe as seen in moderns from Central Asia and Uralics does not exclusively correlate with IE but with disparate language families. We cannot claim that its because some steppe people switched language,.... especially when we have no evidence of language from sintashta and andronovo. For all you know some of them acquired language from Iran.

In contrast we have language evidence from Iran and immediate neighbors. They don't seem to hold Iranic speaking Turanians and later groups like Massagatae in any high regard as progenitors of Iranian culture but as enemies and barbarians.

@ANI excavatorbest fit % for Iranians in qpAdm:

I am sure fits will be as good or better with Iran chalc and more proximate ancient populations. There arn't much samples from central Iran, Turan, Afghanistan.

As I remember Armenia_MLBA certainly looks to have steppe ancestry*, though likely of only 15%. They may even have been autosomally similar to early Indo-European speakers of proto-GraecoArmenian, who may well have migrated to Greece, and who most probably had ancestry from the southern steppe.

(One thing I didn't comment on before is the idea seems to be about in these threads that if Armenia_MLBA+Anatolia is a working model for Mycenaeans, this is a refutation of the steppe model of IE.

This could be true, but it's not necessarily the case - an Armenia_MLBA origin for Greek is also compatible with a steppe dispersal of IE to Armenia_MLBA, and from there to Greece.)

* E.g. more EHG relative to Iran_N-like ancestry than CHG has. This extra EHG may have come from a population with the same EHG:Iran_N-like as Yamnaya, or from an intermediary population (biologically and geographically) between CHG and Yamnaya that we haven't yet sampled.

"And Zoroastrians are definitely the Iranians with the most Steppe ancestry. Thats the point."

Therein lies the confusion; by "Iranian", do you have in mind people from within the boundaries of the contemporary nation-state of Iran?

Or, are you referring to all Iranian peoples ranging from the Caucasus (Ossetians) to southern Central Asia (Pashtuns, Ormur-Baraki, Yaghnobi, the Pamiri peoples, the "Tajiks/Farsiwan" of Afghanistan and Tajikstan, etc)?

If the former meaning is at play, you may very well be right.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Zoroastrians happen to be among the most "steppe-shifted" populations in contemporary Iran (genetically speaking).

But, if you have in mind the latter, then you would be quite wrong.

I mean, Pashtuns alone have around the same amount of Steppe_EMBA ancestry as Northern/Eastern Europeans.

And in certain analyses, the Pamiri peoples exceed European levels of Steppe_EMBA admixture, often by 10%!

All things considered, the Iranian triangle of Tajikistan/Afghanistan/northwestern Pakistan is composed of populations which are far more rich in steppe ancestry compared to the western portion of the Iranian cultural/linguistic sphere.

Which makes sense, when one takes into consideration the differing historical dynamics.

Anthro Survey,

Methods like qpAdm and qpGraph are far more generous with the Steppe_EMBA/MLBA percentages, especially in comparison to methods which involve more fine-grained data.

Personally, I really want to see haplotype-based mixture models far more often in the literature, but it seems we may have to wait a little longer.

"The elite Mycenaean individual from the 'royal' tomb at Peristeria in the western Peloponnese did not differ genetically from the other three Mycenaean individuals buried in common graves"

inventing "facts" but I am the clown. HEAR HEAR!

To the Zoroastrian topic. I think I have mentioned it already several times. Zoroastrianism started in West Iran out of a fusion of Mithraistic rituals merging with Elamite and Mesopotamian elements. Even the symbol of the Zoroastrians most likely derive from old Mesopotamian cultures. Compare the Faravahar with Neo Assyrian Ashur and Egyptian Horus symbol.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Persepolis_-_carved_Faravahar.JPG/800px-Persepolis_-_carved_Faravahar.JPGhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Ashur_god.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Egypte_louvre_091_faucon.jpg/800px-Egypte_louvre_091_faucon.jpg

So no there never was a "über Steppic Zoroastrian Elite" that differed from modern Persians or Zoroastrians. J2a dominates among Zoroastrians, even among Parsis who are Zoroastrians that left the Iranian Plateau during the Middle Ages. About the Tepe Hasanlu sample. Whatever he is, from the actual study alone we know his ancestry can be easily explained by a model of Iran_CHL and Armenian_CHL doesn't matter how much someone juggles with the results to fit them with his own theories. But even if he had some Steppic ancestry it was lower than what is nowadays found among the modern Iranic groups.

What can be explained in two waysA: He wasn't a Indo European let alone Iranic

B: He was Steppic mixed and represents the earliest Medes and the reason why modern people of the Iranian Plateau show more Steppe like admixture is due to the fact that the Iranian Plateau was target of many Steppe Iranic invasions such as the Royal Scythians under Partatua, the Alans-Sarmatians relocated to West Iran and Mesopotamia to fight of the Romans and the Cimmerian settlements in the very same regions.

@kurti Zoroastrianism was born in the east, and reached western iran much later. The language of zoroaster avestan is an east iranian language. The centre of the iranic speaking world shifted west to iran later

@SeinExactly my point, which I've made many times. Btw, you didn't mention Tajik-majority areas in Termez, Samarkand, and Bukhara provinces. Even if we subtract the steppe-rich Turkic admixture out, they're still pretty steppic I reckon. Also would interested to see how folks from Iran's NE score, as it's part of the same zone---Tus, Nishaybur, etc. Yes, haplotype-based models would be useful.

@postneo Who considers them barbarians? Bitter exile Iranians with a political agenda or dispassionate scholars of Persianate studies? Virtually all of the giants revered by Iranic peoples and Turks alike today were born east of the great salt desert: Ibn Sina, Rudaki, Rumi, Ferdowsi, etc. Western Iran's importance rose significantly during Ilkhanid rule after the Mongol invasions, though. It became preeminent in the 20th century.

people like Darius the great. I don't endorse his views , merely stating them ! The Gathas also mention subsets of Turanians as enemies. The steppe component in eastern Iranians is a a geographical genetic cline and may not correlate with Iranian as a language family.

"Zoroastrianism was born in the east, and reached western iran much later. The language of zoroaster avestan is an east iranian language. The centre of the iranic speaking world shifted west to iran later"

Incorrect, Zoroastrianism emerged in West Iran not in Khorasan. Avesta is a book written by Zarathustra who migrated there from West Iran, by that time the distinguishing loudshifts between Western and Eastern Iranic had not occured. Avesta being classified as "East Iranic" simply means it didn't had yet the loudshifts that are needed to be classified as West Iranic.

As I already tried to explain in the past West Iranic tongues evolved in West Iran with Medic being most likely the Proto_West Iranic language. Before that there was no West or East division. The Proto_Medes (and the Persians who emerged out of the very same source) did not come as "West Iranics". But simply a yet undivided Iranic group.

In linguistics tongues are often classified as West Iranic simply because they do not show the features needed to be classified as East Iranic and the same applies vica versa.

"The Old Iranian language group is a branch of the Indo-Iranian language group. Iranian languages are traditionally classified as "eastern" or "western", and within this framework Avestan is classified as eastern. But this distinction is of limited meaning for Avestan, as the linguistic developments that later distinguish Eastern from Western Iranian had not yet occurred. Avestan does not display some typical (South-)Western Iranian innovations already visible in Old Persian, and so in this sense, "eastern" only means "non-western".[8] That is not to say that Avestan does not display any characteristic innovations of its own – e.g., the sibilant pronunciation of the consonant in aša, corresponding to original /rt/ that is preserved in the Old Persian form (arta), as well as Sanskrit (ṛta)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan

Kurti said

"What can be explained in two waysA: He wasn't a Indo European let alone Iranic"

Btw, when I said this "As I remember Armenia_MLBA certainly looks to have steppe ancestry*, though likely of only 15%", I really should have said "As I remember Armenia_MLBA certainly looks to have steppe ancestry in excess of Armenia_EBA, though likely of only 15%". The actual total steppe-like ancestry (if modelled so) would be high.

@Rob, paper had no modelling of the form where models were (WHG, Anatolia_N + Armenia_MLBA) or (WHG, Minoan, Steppe/Europe BA) or (WHG, EHG, CHG, Anatolia_N).

I assume that the WHG would be basically insufficiently different from noise if detectable, so they didn't bother?

Like, if a working model of Mycenaean is 79:21 Minoan:EuropeLNBA, then Mycenaean would be have about 2% WHG assuming a high WHG EuropeLNBA source with 10% extra WHG (i.e. 50:50 Yamnaya:Iberia MN, the latter wih have 20% WHG). Or 1% WHG if a low WHG EuropeLNBA source with 5% extra WHG (i.e. 50:50 Yamnaya:Hungary_CA with around 10% WHG). Small variations in that could be noisy, and not so decisive?

Zoroastrianism cannot be Median. Zoroaster predates the emergence of the artisan caste which is in the late Rig Veda and the Younger Avesta. However, as you say the idea of it appearing anywhere north of Bactria is dubious. CA was the home of many Saka tribes and few settled people. Only the people of Margiana, Chorasmia and Sogdian cities built by Cyrus weren't nomads, and for the religion which favors the farmer over the nomad and considers gardeners the best of people it is very unlikely that it is from Sogdia or Chorasmia, that stayed mostly nomadic till the Sassanid period.

That was never said, but still this is the most likely explanation. Going by Prof. Kreyenbroek. Zoroastrianism looks basically like a limb of Mithraism that emerged earlier among the Medes. Mithraism on itself is a fusion of old Mesopotamian and proto Iranic rituals. This explains the old Mesopotamian elements in Zoroastrianism. It is believed that Zoroaster himself was a Mithraistic priest of the Median Magi cast (Priest cast called this way because they were thought to be magicians). He was expelled from the cast and this might be the explanation why he has a grudge against Mithraists. His whole Zoroastrianism looks just like a copy of Mithraism. With the only difference that he put Ahura above Mithra.

@Matt"As I remember Armenia_MLBA certainly looks to have steppe ancestry in excess of Armenia_EBA, though likely of only 15%"."

The problem is, and the mistake many of you guys make is, to think this is actual steppe admixture. How can you know that this "EHG" ancestry wasn't there or somewhere nearby all along and this creates a pseudo Steppe admixture.

I think no one here remembers that Mesolithic Iran_Hotu cave sample was more "EHG" shifted than Iran_Neolithic samples. How can this be? A likely explanation is that pre Neolithic Iran was more EHG like (ANE shifted). So who can assure us that there couldn't have been groups on the Iranian Plateau and the Caucasus that were already more EHG shifted before even a Steppic nomad set a foot in this region? http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

I know the usual suspects will find another "logical" explanation for all that, and present it to me in a very creative comment.

I am not implying that Samanid Khorasan takes home all the gold, but that it was a defining period in a defining region. I did not mean to intentionally omit Rhazes, btw, although Rey was more of transitional region, not exactly western.

The Achamenian period isn’t so significant with respect to the development modern Persian or Pan-Iranic identity as we know it. It covered a vast territory, but had little lasting cultural influence on the region at large and many of its greatest military and architectural achievements were the handiwork of its Greek, Anatolian and/or various Semitic subjects in the Levant and Messopotamia. It wasn’t an Iranic empire in the proper sense of the term as that of the Sassanids, Samanids or Persianate Turkic-ruled dynasties but a Soviet Union of 5th century BCE. Aramaic was the lingua franca and Old Persian speech was limited to its royalty, priestly classes and Iranic peoples(east of the Zagros). Messopotamia was its breadbasket and cultural epicenter.

The Sassanid period differs in that its kings were unabashedly Persian, pan-Iranic, and didn’t subscribe to the universalism of the Ach-ids. Its military victories were won on the tips of (Iranic) aswaran spears and Sogdian maces. Still, its achievements in other areas, such as architecture, were thanks to Roman captives or developments of traditions in Assyria/Messopotamia, whose cardinal importance remained unchanged. Iranic culture did not spread much beyond the Oxus or the Zagros during this time, aside from one respect: periodic spikes of Zoroastrian fundamentalism.

Enter the Samanids(you can actually count the Tahirids and Saffarids in):

Here, the balance of power and influence suddenly shifts from Messopotamia to Bactria. Actually, it wasn’t so sudden because Bactria and Sogdia were making a fortune on the Silk Road and becoming metallurgical centers by late Sassanid times. Iranics had full political control of evth east of Baghdad(of Persian etymology). An official lingua franca emerged from Khorasan. Derived from Middle Persian’s Dari dialect and effectively codified in the Shahnameh, it was a quasi-nationalistic work of an (eastern) Iranic author. The new Arabic script? Iranic development. The dehqans to which you guys referred, including Shah Ismail ibn Ahmad and, say, the Barmakids pulling the strings in Baghdad, were not of primarily Western Iranic origin. Even if they were, it’s to my point that Iranics in general began to exercise more influence WITHIN and OUTSIDE the confines of their states than in any period prior. Works of literature and original ideas in natural philosophy were actually authored by Iranics(many Eastern), not Assyrian monks copying Hellenistic texts as in pre-Islamic times.

From a mostly Bactrian epicenter, the cultural influence was spread far and beyond by Turkic vectors----eastward and westward. Routs of Achaemenids by Greeks are the quintessence of defeat, but the Seljuks utterly smashed Byzantine armies and cemented Persianate culture in Anatolia. Seljuk period also witnessed an architectural explosion inside the Iranosphere that is regarded unmistakably Iranian today, in contrast to the generic forms of Ach-ids and early Sassanids. (Timurid period took it even further.) Their Ottoman successors brought it deeper into the Balkans. Why do you think Albanians celebrate nevruz? Cyrus? As for India? Who was Amir Khusraw and why is there a “HyderABAD” in the Deccan? Could Xerxes have smth to do with it(sarc)?

"The steppe component in eastern Iranians is a a geographical genetic cline and may not correlate with Iranian as a language family."

Thing is, Europe has a geographical genetic cline, too. Spain is not as steppe-shifted as Poland(yes, even if subtract out extra-WHG in Poles) because the latter is positioned closer to the steppe/LPIE epicenter. In this case, the gradient reflects timescale of IEzation.

If we accept the conventional BMAC-Yaz-Oxus theory of an Iranic urheimat, it's reasonable to expect steppe ancestry to have fizzled out over the course of their migrations westward. The mystery for me is how the nomadic steppic folks north of the Oxus were Iranized by these (supposedly) partially sedentary communities.

The idea of Median Mithraism is not proven. We still don't have a good proof of the existence of the Median Mithraism and neither is proper (Gathic) Zoroastrianism a mix of Proto-Mesopotamian and Proto-Iranic religions. This mix happened after the Medo-Achaemenid period. In fact most of what we know of Zoroastrianism is from that period because Gathic Zoroasterianism is different.

>>The Achamenian period isn’t so significant with respect to the development modern Persian or Pan-Iranic identity as we know it.

Is that why every King after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire claimed to be a descendant of Artaxerxes? Or why the Kayanians were merged with the Achaemenids?

>> It covered a vast territory, but had little lasting cultural influence on the region at large and many of its greatest military and architectural achievements were the handiwork of its Greek, Anatolian and/or various Semitic subjects in the Levant and Messopotamia

Nope. It's greatest military achievements were by Persians and Medians.

Let's start with the timeline:

1. Persians conquered Media.2. Persians and Medes conquered Lydia.3. Persians and Medes conquered Babylonia and rest of Asia.4. Persians and Medes conquered half of Greece and then lost at Marathon.5. 2nd invasion of Greece with more subjects and defeat6. Greek offensive successful at first then repulsed7. King's Peace and Greek is almost a satrapy8. Alexander

After the King's Peace they started using more mercenaries and thats when the Iranian cavalry and archer dependent type of warfare died, which led them to getting conquered by the Macedonians.

>>. Its military victories were won on the tips of (Iranic) aswaran spears and Sogdian maces.

They didn't even rule Sogdia for 200 years.

>>Iranic culture did not spread much beyond the Oxus or the Zagros during this time, aside from one respect: periodic spikes of Zoroastrian fundamentalism.

Everything the Samanids did was based on what the Sassanids did. Shahnameh? Khwaday Namag.

"The Sasanian Empire during Late Antiquity is considered to have been one of Iran's most important and influential historical periods, and constituted the last great Iranian empire before the Muslim conquest and the adoption of Islam.[18] In many ways, the Sasanian period witnessed the peak of ancient Iranian civilization. Persia influenced Roman culture considerably during the Sasanian period.[19] The Sasanians' cultural influence extended far beyond the empire's territorial borders, reaching as far as Western Europe,[20] Africa,[21] China and India.[22] It played a prominent role in the formation of both European and Asian medieval art.[23] Much of what later became known as Islamic culture in art, architecture, music and other subject matter was transferred from the Sasanians throughout the Muslim world.[24]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Empire

Even pre-Islamic and early Islamic Arabian poetry was mentioning the Sassanids frequently.

>>Routs of Achaemenids by Greeks are the quintessence of defeat

No they weren't. Try Hans Delbruck's Warfare in Antiquity, it's a true masterpiece.

>>Why do you think Albanians celebrate nevruz? Cyrus?

Uuuh yes? It's an Achaemenid festival.

Again you are trying to undermine the accomplishment of western Iran for some reason.

The problem is, and the mistake many of you guys make is, to think this is actual steppe admixture. How can you know that this "EHG" ancestry wasn't there or somewhere nearby all along and this creates a pseudo Steppe admixture.

Several sure ways. Like Fst distance (Armenia_MLBA is much closer than other West Asians to steppe BA groups) and uniparental markers, like steppe sublades of U4, U5 and T1.

But I'll let Matt explain to you the relevant basics, if he feels like dealing with your pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

"Several sure ways. Like Fst distance (Armenia_MLBA is much closer than other West Asians to steppe BA groups) and uniparental markers, like steppe sublades of U4, U5 and T1."

weren't you one of those who were in the campaign that fsts can be misleading sometimes? Nevermindm, but how does Armenia_MLBA being "much closer" to Steppe BA proof that this "Steppe BA" LIKE DNA did actually come from the Steppes and not from a source just nearby, like let's say the North Caucasus as I pointed out in my post above. Isn't there a possibility that the Caucasus received EHG like admixture already during the Neolithic. Now can you rule this out? If you can't than stfu and don't act like you can.

Is this too much to comprehend for you? My invitation still stands. I would love to have a discussion with you on neutral ground. And don't come here telling me you don't have time. I have been following this blog long enough, you say you don't take the OIT supporters serious but you still seem to find the time to keep the discussion up with them since month.

on a sidenote what about M340653 I1635 Armenia EBA [2619-2465 BC] X2f R1b-M343>L389>V1636

Despite Armenia_EBA looking like a two way mix of CHG and Anatolian_Nhttp://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

And Armenia MLB yDNA is most likely derived from Armenia EBA.

And what about Iran_Hotu being more "EHG" shifted than Iran_NEO? Does that not indicate the possibility of some groups on the Iranian Plateau being more EHG like shifted than other as far back as the mesolithic?

Instead of flying over the arguments and cherry picking the parts you think you could counter, how about you try to answer the main points.

The point is that you don't have any point and build your theories through nitpicking certain things and ignoring others.

No one here is denying the possibility (and likely-ness) of Steppe admixture in Armenia_MLB. I for myself have accepted the (most) likely-ness that most if not all modern surviving Indo European groups (Balto_Slavic, Germanic, Iranic) derive from the Steppes.

But despite that the reason why I still argue against your bullshit is because you love to ignore facts that are standing in the way of your theories. And ignore or let these facts/inconsistencies unanswered, even if explicitly asked about, and cherry pick those new informations which play in your hand.

Even if you have your preffered/favorite theories, if you want to be taken serious you have to take the other sites arguments serious. If you don't do that and are just in search for support for your own theories,you know how that is called? CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Anthro said"The Achamenian period isn’t so significant with respect to the development modern Persian or Pan-Iranic identity as we know it. It covered a vast territory, but had little lasting cultural influence on the region at large and many of its greatest military and architectural achievements were the handiwork of its Greek, Anatolian and/or various Semitic subjects in the Levant and Messopotamia. It wasn’t an Iranic empire in the proper sense of the term as that of the Sassanids, Samanids or Persianate Turkic-ruled dynasties but a Soviet Union of 5th century BCE. Aramaic was the lingua franca and Old Persian speech was limited to its royalty, priestly classes and Iranic peoples(east of the Zagros). Messopotamia was its breadbasket and cultural epicenter."

The Achaemenian achievements predate or co-existed with the Greek once. There is absolutely no Greek "handwork" on the early Achaemnid period. I don't know of any Anatolian either. The "various "Semitic" we are talking about are actually various old Mesopotamian (Sumerian) handworks that these East Semitic groups such as the Assyrians and Babylonians adopted. the Sassanid royalty around Ardashir was actually of Parthian origin. Aramaic was lingua Franca of the whole Middle East and therefore used in the early stages to be ablte to communicate with the other Empires.

The problem with having discussions with you is that you make the assumption that if you don't know or understand something then it's not a viable argument.

So, for instance, you fail to comprehend that Armenia_MLBA is unusually close to ancient and modern Eastern and Northern Europeans relative to ancient and even modern day West Asians not to be a product of admixture between European and West Asian populations. For example...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/10/hurrians-and-others.html

Now, you're free to ignore this information, or imagine all sorts of weird and fantastic things to try and explain it away, like, for instance, a bubble of European-like ancestry, but not actually from Europe, existing in MLBA Armenia, but please don't expect any intelligent and reasonable person to take you seriously.

thats not what I know. You say Zoroastrianism adopted Mesopotamian rituals during the Achaemenid period, but that is the period when Zoroastrianism actually established itself. From my knowledge Zoroastrianism is clearly a religion that evolved in West Iran, the Mesopotamian/Near Eastern elements are just too strong.

But let's agree to disagree until we have ancient Achaemenid or Sassanid era Persian samples. And if these samples are allot more Steppe shifted or are almost identical to modern Persian. My bet is on the latter. If the latter is the case than Zoroastrianism has definitely evolved in West Iran. Either that or the Yaz culture was genetically identical to modern West Iranics, what I personally doubt.

My theory is that it will turn out that modern West Iranics can be modeled as 2/3 Yaz and 1/3 Iran_CHL/Kura Araxes.

"Nope. It's greatest military achievements were by Persians and Medians."

I guess you forgot all about the Greek hoplites, Mesopotamian infantry, Scythian horse archers, Levantine sailors and countless other groups making up this mercenary military force which Alexander utterly routed anyway, but OK.

The Achaemenid armies were NOT the world beaters that Turkic-ruled Persianate entities were. Not even remotely close. Perhaps they excelled at diplomacy(Persian coins, allying w/Babylon, etc.) and took advantage of fragmented situations, but were NOT military buffs. Various historical Turkish entities with their innovative tactics, on the other hand, have, quite possibly, the best military track record. Nader Shah? Gurkhan Timur? Kilij Arslan? Ghaznavid sultans? Mughals? Seljuk beyliks relied on cheap Anatolian infantry in some engagements, but their shamshir-armed mounted archers were the mainstay.

Sassanid armies were a drastic improvement over the Achaemenid rabble crowds. Nowhere did I deny this. It was a well-oiled Iranic machine(with heavy infantry from the Sughd and Daylam, yes), even if it reverse-engineered much of Roman technology.

"Uuuh yes? It's an Achaemenid festival."First off, it's quite modified. Secondly, I didn't know Cyrus conquered the western Balkans and spread Persian culture there. Unless Cyrus is a codeword for Mehmet? Again, various Turk-ruled states(acting as patrons) spread the distinct Persian cultural synthesis of the Samanid era. We should accept this fundamental fact. Rumi didn't flee to Seljuk Rum for no reason.

"Everything the Samanids did was based on what the Sassanids did. Shahnameh? Khwaday Namag."Except that we didn't see a flourishing literary tradition in Western Iran under Sassanid rule, did we? Or the emergence of a natural philosophy tradition whose Iranic figures made original contributions? There is no question Samanids were quasi-nationalists and prided themselves in being Sassanid heirs, but there's also no question that they took things up a hundred notches.

"Again you are trying to undermine the accomplishment of western Iran for some reason."I am merely addressing that which has been blown out of proportion by Shah-era propaganda, anti-Turkists, and anachronistic mis-perceptions induced by modern-day political boundaries. More importantly, I am raising awareness for Khorasan and the pivotal role it played in the Iranosphere which has been overshadowed by....you name it.

"The Achaemenian achievements predate or co-existed with the Greek once. There is absolutely no Greek "handwork" on the early Achaemnid period. I don't know of any Anatolian either."

Really? How about Persepolis? Craftmen from Asia Minor are well documented there by the mason's marks they left.

Aside form Persepolis, we don't see many distinctive works anyway. In the Sassanian period we do see Iranian innovations, though---mainly proto-iwans and chahar taq which are quintessential to Persian architecture. These forms reach a zenith in the Timurid and Mughal dynasties.

Also, how about those Semitic and Aegean sailors who made the Persian navy possible?

"The shift to EBA seems mediated by intrusion of Tepecik-like groups. ""

I don't rule out that option. That's definitely a possibility.

@all

Concerning that R1b in Kura-Araxes. This was repeated many times but I will say once more. R1b in Kura Araxes can't be at the origin of any R1b-M269. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Look at the Smal's tree. It is a parallel branch to P297. We don't know when he came to Caucasus. It could be there since Mesolithic. Or later.

The outlier was R1a. So Poltavka initially was not a Iranic culture. But later shifted to Iranian languages when Srubna came there. And more later we see a Sarmatian having the same Y DNA as Poltavka R1b-s.

@Kurti: How can you know that this "EHG" ancestry wasn't there or somewhere nearby all along and this creates a pseudo Steppe admixture?

There is still sparse sampling. We can't know what happened between CHG and Armenia_Chl, because we have no sampling of the area in that time.

I did qualify my comment with when I mentioned "Steppe ancestry" = "E.g. more EHG relative to Iran_N-like ancestry than CHG has. This extra EHG may have come from a population with the same EHG:Iran_N-like as Yamnaya, or from an intermediary population (biologically and geographically) between CHG and Yamnaya that we haven't yet sampled.".

Understand if that didn't quite make sense to you there the way I had written it, as it is quite wordy and not necessarily the best way of writing that. (I think I had in mind slightly your past comments, though did not remember you by name).

That said, there's not a lot of space between where the CHG samples are and full EHG samples ancestry that is *not* on the steppe.

The North Caucasus is about it, anything north of that is on the steppe. The steppe does not equal Dneiper-Donets or Samara (Middle Volga) areas. There's a whole region of the steppe that is north of the Caucasus, between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

It is quite likely that ancient North Caucasus peoples had more EHG ancestry than South Caucasus peoples who were living at the same time, but do I think it was likely to be a lot more? I think it's unlikely based on how much EHG level changes between Iran_N->CHG or Iran_N->Iran_Hotu.

I think no one here remembers that Mesolithic Iran_Hotu cave sample was more "EHG" shifted than Iran_Neolithic samples. How can this be? A likely explanation is that pre Neolithic Iran was more EHG like (ANE shifted).

They were from different parts of Iran, so probably mostly just pre-Neolithic population geography.

I think it helps to refer to the map of where we have samples when talking about this stuff: Lazaridis map of samples: http://oi63.tinypic.com/velx6d.jpg, Steppe Zone: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c6/4c/c5/c64cc5a8f4b3171ba85850f350d1d62b.jpg

About Andronovo , it may correspond to the Tuiryas (Turanians) of Avesta and their land Turan which is in Central Asia . Avesta also mentions Sairimas (Some connect with Proto-Sarmatians) , in late phases of BMAC presence of Andronovo related tribes is felt and detected in archaeology.

@ Aram"Concerning that R1b in Kura-Araxes. This was repeated many times but I will say once more. R1b in Kura Araxes can't be at the origin of any R1b-M269. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Look at the Smal's tree. It is a parallel branch to P297. We don't know when he came to Caucasus. It could be there since Mesolithic. Or later".

Mesolithic? The oldest R1b found in Caucasus (with Iran, Anatolia, Middle East) is long after Italy, Iberia, Balkans, Eastern Europe. When some older sample will be found, write to me.

"I did qualify my comment with when I mentioned "Steppe ancestry" = "E.g. more EHG relative to Iran_N-like ancestry than CHG has. This extra EHG may have come from a population with the same EHG:Iran_N-like as Yamnaya, or from an intermediary population (biologically and geographically) between CHG and Yamnaya that we haven't yet sampled.".

I didn't saw your original post and my comment was based around your last comment in which you quoted yourself. Otherwise if I had sawn this comment I wouldn't had bothered to answer it.

In general my comment was actually directed towards the host of this blog anyways, becaus ehe believes everything EHG related must have come from the Steppes.

If you red the comment sections properly you would have sawn that. Or did you simply ignore the hosts claims for the sake of not creating "uproar" here, because I didn't saw you criticizing his approach in any way.

"In general my comment was actually directed towards the host of this blog anyways, becaus ehe believes everything EHG related must have come from the Steppes."

correctionhe believes everything EHG related must have come from the Steppes during the Bronze Age.

"The North Caucasus is about it, anything north of that is on the steppe. The steppe does not equal Dneiper-Donets or Samara (Middle Volga) areas. There's a whole region of the steppe that is north of the Caucasus, between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea."

We only have samples from mesolithic West Caucasus and Bronze, Iron AGE Transcaucasus so far. So we need more samples but even if "North Caucasus is all.

YOu don't think it is possible and EVEN likely to find admixture in the North of Caucasus that comes from both ends of the "border"? Even if it is far lower from the North in comparison to the Southern admixture.

Dave said"Now, you're free to ignore this information, or imagine all sorts of weird and fantastic things to try and explain it away, like, for instance, a bubble of European-like ancestry, but not actually from Europe, existing in MLBA Armenia, but please don't expect any intelligent and reasonable person to take you seriously."

Here we go again, the usual cherry picking.

The difference between you and me is that I actually confront your "arguments" while you ignore most of them, cherry pick only the once you think you have an "answer" for and ignore the other. I think I don't need to quote my comment again for the people to see which parts of my comment you certanly ignored. And it does not have anything to do with you not taking the time for it, it is that you simply can't answer them.

It's not me being unable to comprehend it is you having some sort of blockade in your head to understand the simplest arguments and you repeat yourself like a broken recorder.

you said "So, for instance, you fail to comprehend that Armenia_MLBA is unusually close to ancient and modern Eastern and Northern Europeans relative to ancient and even modern day West Asians not to be a product of admixture between European and West Asian populations. For example"

Are you joking? you believe Armenian_MLB is that much East and North European shifted that it can't be explained through a Anatolian_EBA + little Neolithic North Cacausus or Steppe admixture?

Now I have seen it all. Maybe in your fantasy world Armenian_MLB can not be explained as ancient West Asian + a little extra EHG like ancestry. But in reality it does.

I said previously"No one here is denying the possibility (and likely-ness) of Steppe admixture in Armenia_MLB. I for myself have accepted the (most) likely-ness that most if not all modern surviving Indo European groups (Balto_Slavic, Germanic, Iranic) derive from the Steppes....

but how does Armenia_MLBA being "much closer" to Steppe BA proof that this "Steppe BA" LIKE DNA did actually come from the Steppes and not from a source just nearby, like let's say the North Caucasus as I pointed out in my post above. Isn't there a possibility that the Caucasus received EHG like admixture already during the Neolithic. Now can you rule this out? If you can't than stfu and don't act like you can.

"

It's not me being not being able to comprehend it, it is you having some kind of blockade up there that stops you from using basic logic and understanding arguments that go against your wishes.

For me this discussion with you here is over because you certanly just ignore the other sides arguments and have started to make up arguments that are just laughable at best. Still my invitation stays because I don't like to comment on hostile ground.

Nevermind me not liking many of your ideas and your methods. I am not an idiot and credit where credit should be given. You are well gifted in genetics and I respect you for that. But your weak-ness that stands in your way imo, is in other sections of this field.

Often I don't even want to argue with you in a harsh way but too often you push me into a heated debate with unnecessary comments. Being hot heated must be a R1a thing, I should know it.

>>"I guess you forgot all about the Greek hoplites, Mesopotamian infantry, Scythian horse archers, Levantine sailors and countless other groups making up this mercenary military force which Alexander utterly routed anyway, but OK.

I did say they used mercenaries but Cyrus only used Persians and Medes in his armies.

"After the King's Peace they started using more mercenaries and thats when the Iranian cavalry and archer dependent type of warfare died, which led them to getting conquered by the Macedonians."

^ this is a fact. The Macedonian phalanx is very weak against arrows because of their small shield and Persians used very few archers thanks to their use of mercenaries. 1.5k Archers in Gaugemela of 1 million (bs number). We see that the Macedonian phalanx later fails against Parthians and Scythians.

>>The Achaemenid armies were NOT the world beaters that Turkic-ruled Persianate entities were"

Conquer most of the known world and you're not a world beater but raid a few Indian temples like the Ghaznavid and win a few battles against a dying Byzantine Empire like the Seljuqs and you are? Totally not biased.

>>Sassanid armies were a drastic improvement over the Achaemenid rabble crowds. Nowhere did I deny this. It was a well-oiled Iranic machine(with heavy infantry from the Sughd and Daylam, yes), even if it reverse-engineered much of Roman technology.

The infantry is based on Roman infantry there's no doubt about that. Yet you don't mention the fact that it's this empire that had the precursor of the European knight and that the Eastern Roman empire also "reverse-engineered" their technology.

Because it was already a strong culture. The same reason later Europeans spread Latin culture and gave us the renaissance.

>>Except that we didn't see a flourishing literary tradition in Western Iran under Sassanid rule, did we? Or the emergence of a natural philosophy tradition whose Iranic figures made original contributions?

Ibn Al Muqaffa translated Khwaday Namag but it was burned and was used as an excuse to execute him. You do realize many of the Sassanid works were burned in the early Islamic Era?

>>I am merely addressing that which has been blown out of proportion by Shah-era propaganda, anti-Turkists, and anachronistic mis-perceptions induced by modern-day political boundaries

Agreed. They are pretty annoying but you don't see any of that here.

>>Really? How about Persepolis? Craftmen from Asia Minor are well documented there by the mason's marks they left.

Does it matter that Romans used Syrians, Nubians and etc as soldiers and craftsmen? Why does it matter for the Persians?

>>Aside form Persepolis, we don't see many distinctive works anyway.

Ancient Iranian cities are under modern day cities like Ecbatana, another reason why we never saw distinctive works.

Agreed 100%. He/she mentions that early persians used Mercs, but he fails to mentions that the same Dynasties he's bragging about also relied heavily on Mercs and various ethnic groups(way more than early Persians). The Afsharids and the Mughals had extremely diverse armies/commanders.

The amount of historical revisionism/ignorance by Anthro is quite hilarious.

this cline has significance outside Southern Europe. In Greece there seems to be a post 4000 BC pulse of people that shift towards Tepecik in Anatolia. The EHG cline of mainland vs island Greece is not significant and a lot of it is recent. As for Asia we don't know the eastward extent of EHG

Re:KnightBtw, I didn't say they copied Roman infantry. In any case, the European knight is an organic, independent development which began during Carolingan times, picked up steam during the Norman era and reached its zenith shortly thereafter. The Saracens Normans faced were totally unprepared for their characteristic charges and had no real answer to it. Normans were as valuable of mercenaries as the newly arriving Turkics shortly before the onset of the Crusades. Funny how this Sassanian model didn't persist in the near east(and hopped into Europe?). It was ultimately ANALOGOUS in its approach, but not HOMOLOGOUS. Bird's wings. Bat's wings. By the way, heavy plate-n-mail(zereh begter) cavalry did become popular later on among Ottomans and Safavids, but again, was an independent development.

RE:GhaznavidsYou can downplay the Ghaznavids, but you really can't say much about Timur, Nader Shah or the Seljuks unless you're biased....against Turks(which many neo-Achaemenians are----not saying it's you). The Seljuks were facing high-caliber Byzantine forces and would have gotten to Constantinople much sooner had the Westerners not arrived. By the way, the Turkish conquerors achieved comparable land area in less time and fighting comparably equipped, ambitious armies.

"Because it was already a strong culture. The same reason later Europeans spread Latin culture and gave us the renaissance."Yes, it was quite DEFINED by the close of the Samanid era and the Turks were vectors in its spread. Now, the analogy to the Persian cultural synthesis of the Samanid era is the CAROLINGAN Renaissance, plus a century or so. Somewhat contemporaneous, too. It culminated in old Gaul. In this case, the Germanic nobility are analogs to the Turks and spread this culture into Eastern Europe---like Baltic states, Hungary and Poland. The Norman invasion(spearheaded by Germanic nobles) also "updated" the English and explains the French vocabulary in it. Normans=/=Vikings.

"Does it matter that Romans used Syrians, Nubians and etc as soldiers and craftsmen? Why does it matter for the Persians?"I will be the last to call the Romans an "Italic" or even strictly "European" empire as I would label the Carolingans. If anything, it was a Hellenistic empire headed by Italics w/a center of gravity in the East Med during its early days. The only Italic part was its infantry core---its legionnaires(membership was exclusive to citizens). Funnily, the Illyrians pretty much AMOGed them in that once citizenship was extended to everyone. Also, the legionnaires' equipment was based on Celtic and Iberian, not Hellenistic models contrary to Hollywood's portrayals. As for architecture? Here, an evolution of Hellenistic traditions, with important innovations: the most spectacular being domes and vaults(including rib vaults). Late Roman architecture was pretty elaborate for its day and a far cry from the Parthenon.

"Ibn Al Muqaffa translated Khwaday Namag but it was burned and was used as an excuse to execute him. You do realize many of the Sassanid works were burned in the early Islamic Era?"Nobody said Ferdowsi's works had zero inspiration, but they were not mere imitations of Sassanid material. Many Sassanid works were burned, but there is little indication any of them were original mathematics or natural philosophy treatises. Even if there were a handful, much safer to attribute them to Assyrians of Messopotamia, than to Iranics of the plateau or Oxus. In any case, there is no denying the massive continuation of the Hellenistic tradition in the Eastern Caliphate regions. To take it one step further: no denying that folks they surpassed the Byzantines, where old Hellenistic works mainly collected dust, or worse(see the story about Archimedes Palimpsest).

If we restrict southern Europe to Greece, sure, but Iberia, Southern France and North Italy did not experience such significant post-Neolithic infusions you described(and I'm well aware of).They are on a clean steppe-EEF cline. We'll have to see how much of this influence there was in the rest of the Balkans, though, with future papers or at least when genomes from Mathieson 2017 are released.

I love it how you neo-Achaemenid revisionists pre-emptively hurl the charge of revisionism at any honest investigators of Turco-Iranian history when it infects your ranks most.

Davidski has had his fair share of dealings with them here, especially after they came rank-n-file ready to spin the results of Lazaridis' farmer paper a year ago bent on emphasizing the "Iranian" in "Iranian Neolithic" to their ends when Iran as we now it was not to be until the steppic infusion.

Of course those armies had diverse commanders, troops and what-have-you, but the mainstay of all of these Persianate armies prior to the height of the gunpowder age were, in fact, contingents of mounted Turkish ghazis. These were as effective as they were archetypal. A sword to the Turk and a pen to the Tajik, or so goes the saying. What's more, these Turks would have been Kazakh or at least Turkmen-like autosomally. Hardly revisionism. It's time to accept this and move on. The esteemed scholar Kaveh Farrokh accepts the well-established Turko-Persian paradigm. Why can't you?

I didn't exactly have rock reliefs and carvings in mind when I was discussing architecture----let alone those from the Sassanid era. In any case, Achaemenid architecture of Iran was simply not influential in setting trends w/in the plateau nor influencing that of its conquered non-Iranian people. The same cannot be said for Hellenistic architecture(and its Roman successor) whose influence was as far reaching geographically as legacy-wise. Revisionism you say? I did insunuate, if you forgot, that Sassanian era witnessed the emergence of some rather distinctive, highly influential forms in centuries to come: iwan and chahar taq. But, again, they reached their peak in the subsequent Islamic eras. Sassanian buildings weren't exactly like Taj Mahal or Registan. Roman buildings weren't exactly Notre Dame or Duomo either. To suggest otherwise is to engage in anachronism.

Things evolve in complexity with time. Some Neo-Achaemenids have this fantasy paradigm of a "Zoroastrian space age" interrupted by a "barbarian Arab" invasion, but it's actually much more interesting and, I daresay, uplifting than that for their own sake(and the Arab role is overstated anyway).

YOu don't think it is possible and EVEN likely to find admixture in the North of Caucasus that comes from both ends of the "border"?Of course I think it's possible, or I wouldn't have said it was possible. I just don't think it's likely to be much - like, I think Rob's estimate is probably high end so won't pan out. But I don't say it's impossible or crazy.

did you simply ignore the hosts claims for the sake of not creating "uproar" here, because I didn't saw you criticizing his approach in any way?

Why am I gonna go call out the guy who is putting the effort forward and producing all the data on this blog, when what he has some bias towards is mostly within the mainstream idea of Indo-European origins and often probably true anyway, and he changes his opinion when given totally unavoidable evidence? (e.g. CHG as real component, etc.)

I may as well just put the alternative options that I think might be possible out and try to point out gaps and if he and other readers are convinced that they are worth looking at, they'll work it anyway.

It wasn't really that independent. The Byzantine cataphracts were copied from the Sassanids. The Byzantine ones influenced the cavalry of the Germanic people during their wars. Not exactly straight from the Sassanids but they had a big influence.

>>You can downplay the Ghaznavids, but you really can't say much about Timur, Nader Shah or the Seljuks unless you're biased....against Turks

I'm not biased but I can downplay the Seljuqs but I can't downplay Timur's or Nader's genius, and both of them were world beaters. Nader is called the last great Asiatic conqueror for a reason. However, both Nader and Timur did not have an influence as big as someone who was mentioned in the Old Testament, the Quran and had an entire Greek book written about him while said author was a soldier fighting against his empire.

>> The Seljuks were facing high-caliber Byzantine forces and would have gotten to Constantinople much sooner had the Westerners not arrived.

The Byzantine Empire was already dying. It suffered many catastrophic defeats over the years and was dependent on costly mercenaries, and yet they were wasting gold on gifts and luxury. So their defeat is not really surprising. As for the Second Crusade it was Muslim nations vs Christian nations thingy and not Seljuq vs Christian. However, the Ottomans had victories against healthy empires.

>>Yes, it was quite DEFINED by the close of the Samanid era and the Turks were vectors in its spread.

But it wasn't. Even Abbasid Caliphs like Al-Mamun claimed to be the heir of the Sassanids from his mother's side. You can count the Shia Imams as well. Early Islamic by Arabian authors have many sections praising the Sassanids in their books and poems. The "anti-Iranian" Ummayad's as well considered the Persian Kings the best rulers as well. Everyone in the Near East around that time emulated them and wanted to be a part of the Sassanids' legacy and it wasn't because of the Samanids. Samanids are the reason the Persian language still exists but you can't downplay the Sassanids.

>>I will be the last to call the Romans an "Italic" or even strictly "European" empire as I would label the Carolingans

If that's so, then the Assyrian empire is a Babylonian-Akkadian empire and Alexander's empire a Greco-Persian-Babylonian. There's no problem with that, TBH.

>>Many Sassanid works were burned, but there is little indication any of them were original mathematics or natural philosophy treatises. Even if there were a handful, much safer to attribute them to Assyrians of Messopotamia, than to Iranics of the plateau or Oxus.

1. Khosrau was into philosophy himself as were his advisers, who came up with the horrible game called backgammon. We know that the Academy of Gundeshapur was for medicine as well as philosophy and we know that they had brought in many Indian and Chinese scholars, so the idea that everyone contributed except Persians is dubious. We also know that Persian nobles and merchants were taught mathematics but not which degree.

2. There is a hadith from Muhammed: "If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it". During Ibn Al Muqaffa time, the Persians were considered the most knowledgeable of all people by the Arabs. There were also some surviving Pahlavi books about geography and astrology that were mentioned by the Islamic authors. So if we add all of that together we can conclude that the Sassanids did have scientific work. Was it as great as the Samanids? We have no evidence of that so probably not.

>> I'll reply to this :"Funny how this Sassanian model didn't persist in the near east(and hopped into Europe?)" together with:"Of course those armies had diverse commanders, troops and what-have-you, but the mainstay of all of these Persianate armies prior to the height of the gunpowder age were, in fact, contingents of mounted Turkish ghazis."

The model did persist till the Sogdian Afshin was executed for heresy. The Iranian soldiers were elite warriors in the Caliph's army from the times of the Sassanid defectors, the Asawira, Humra and Jund. The Islamic Caliphate could not afford them in large numbers as the Sassanids did, but they were still effective elite units. The Caliphate was suffering from many disloyal Iranians even before the time of Afshin, like Abu Muslim and Yaqub Al Layth, so they took this chance to rid themselves of the Iranians and replaced them with the Turks who were at the very least were loyal to the highest bidder. This caused the death of Iranian military till the Buyid era, where it was 50/50 between the Daylamites and Turks and then died again.

Let's switch to the Turks for a second. The Eastern Turks had absorbed already absorbed some Sogdians and Hephthalite in their armies but most of them were Turkic, while the Western ones (west of modern day Iran) were mostly Caucasians and then Albanians and Greeks were added during the Ottoman Empire. When the Safavid empire emerged they were entirely dependent on Turkic soldiers and they were inferior to their western neighbor the Ottoman empire. That is until Abas decided to switch to Georgian bodyguards, Kurd and Lur soldiers, and with that the restoration of Iranian military. Nader Shah himself gave the command of the navy to the Lurs surprisingly. After that I don't really know what happened and I'm not interested in recent history.

Not sure how this went from Khorasan vs Persia to Iranian vs Turk, and I didn't want to get into it but I can't help but defend my favorite TW faction, the Sassies.